[PD] Re: DSP loops

padawan12 padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk
Wed Jan 31 15:43:34 CET 2007

Yeah, you're going to need to need to go with the small
blocksize to realise this in vanilla Pd. But a blocksize of one
isn't absolutely necessary, you'll probably get away with 8 or
16 for the frequency ranges of typical plucked/hammered strings.
Also, the patch is extremely simple, so I wouldn't worry about 
the expense too much. Just wrap it in an abstraction/subpatch
so that the rest of your patch can run with a standard 64 block.

Take care not to get caught out by the creation order gotchya for
[s~]-[r~] pairs :) Check the archives on this. As Frank pointed out
recently on a similar topic the minimum delay loop time with this
is actually zero, so an extra [z] wouldn't hurt.


On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:24:12 +0000
"Kim Taylor" <kimoni at gmail.com> wrote:

> > By the way, Kim, could you tell me what the feedback loop is?  (what
> > kinds of operations are you using?.... is it linear?...etc...)  If
> > it's linear, you should be able to replace the feedback loop with an
> > equivalent operation, which circumvents the whole problem.
> The structure I am implementing is basically a modified model of the
> structure shown on this page -
> http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/swgt/Rigidly_Terminated_Ideal_String.html
> I have this model working (by using a delay with length 0 and
> blocksize set to 1), if you're interested it's here
> http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kt503/PD/kt1-d_DWG-a.zip
> (unzip to folder, open 1-Ddwg-2g.pd)
> However I now need to integrate this with other modules on a higher
> level (this is just a simple component). The idea is that the delay
> line is bi-directional, and at the terminations they always form
> loops, so as far as I can see it can't be implemented without it...
> K
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list